Because it was necessary to do so but I did not seek to invest it with any greater importance than it merits.
Err this makes no sense if we look back at the last comments in this thread you asked "How important is that, really?..." So I mentioned that it wasn't but how you say it was necessary to do so lol, you have totally lost track of what you are trying to argue.
Which "people"? You seem to be confusing pluralities with singularities and not for the first time.
I have already answered who you played your sarcasm comments with, perfect_pitch in the "Sorabji Free Zone" and myself in this thread when you use sarcasm over your appreciation for my writing. I have already answered it and you again seem to be confused. That's ok I will repeat it over and over for you as required.
Here you go again; "others" - plural - which "others"?
I already defined what "others" meant and proved that it includes more than just one person (something you are trying to suggest unsuccessfully since all this has nothing to do with opinion) so continued to use the term, unless you want me to define what others mean every single time I use it though that is uncessary and clumsy. If you choose not to read what the definition is that I have clarified then I will repeat it again as much as required.
Read your own post and go figure.
Irrational response which assumes that I hold the same opinion as yourself which I do not. So go figure yourself, you like to correct people all the time, that plays a large role in your function here on pianostreet lol. I will continually call you up on it and respond.
You don't know what I did or did not ignore.
Err, it's very easy to notice that you ignored the sarcasm, look at thals last response in this thread, are you saying that we cannot tell that you ignored the sarcasm??? LOL show us proof in your respond to him that you made it so difficult to tell that you ignored it! You absolutely cannot so you have trapped yourself, in your desire to constantly disagree with me you have trapped yourself since your very words prove you wrong. We just have to read your response to thals last comment in this thread to show that you DID IGNORE the sarcasm. So I will call you up on your ignorance as you do with eveyrone else that does it, for example what you have done with Perfect_pitch and myself when it comes to sarcasm.
Again, "people", "others". Plural.
Irrelevant nitpicking, this has not confused the statement which I wrote: "I thought I would tell you to notice the sarcasm which you said is obvious, so I wonder why for you it is obvious but for others they need to look up the definition or that it "goes over their heads"."
It is certainly plural, myself and perfect_pitch. So you are making yourself look ignorant and a liar by saying there is not more than one person you do this to.
Again, "let[']s" - i.e. "let us"; plural again. I don't think that anyone besides you is seeking
to "go further back" on anything.
Should I go back and point out all your spelling mistakes and inaccuracies too? You make yourself look dumb by doing such activities since you are nitpicking on something which is not the main concern, you totally avoid the main concern which is obvious to me and rather amusing. You didn't quote all the main points I put up because you know you prefer your tangents, it requires much less thought lol.
I am indeed ready for that but this alone does not confer upon any such response the warrant of a reply.
If I am pleased to repond I will, it seems unnecceary to even bring it up, though you chose to bring it up, I agree it doesn't warrant any reply but you brought it up so it was your choice lol.
Missing the point as usual. I claimed nothing of the kind; I merely pointed out an opinion and it is of no consequnce whether "others" might or might not share it because it was not referring to anyone else.
Lol @ missing the point, why did you ignore the points in my last post which i clearly numbered for you? Oh you prefer to nitpick I see, thats ok I will respond to all your nitpicks quite happily. you said "Why? I have no "troops" in any case." so I clarified what I meant by troops and thus if you say you have none then that meant you had no one which shared your opinion that what I write is amusing in your special way that you described i.e. "At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" No troops by your side on that one, still waiting for you to produce one since you said my comment that this is your own isolated opinion was unwarrented for, an outcast opinion of your own.
When you make some points worth making on a thread topic, I might focus thereon.
Ah that makes sense why your response degrade to nitpicking and tangents all over the place ignoring the main points of a poster even if they list out the points neatly for you. Maybe you should not respond if you do not want to focus lol. It is your erroneous OPINION that there are no points on this thread, the points have been clearly listed out
As I stated, an opinion does not have to be expressed for it to be held; if you think differently, that's up to you.
It isn't an opinion though because we can infer that not one other person has written
"At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" Not one other person has written this about my writing or agree with you on that. So it is not an opnion when I say it is an isolated opinion that only yourself holds, it is a very strong observation based on the evidence of what others have also written. You can say someone MIGHT harvest the same but that is a weak observation since you will need to actually find that person, my observation that it is only yourself writing about it holding true because no where else on the internet or on pianostreet can we find anyone harvesting the same opinion about my writing. I also know all the responses I have recieved over the years and no one writes ""At least you afford a small amount of occasional amusement with your pseudo-defensively empty witterings, however momentarily!" no one at all.
"People" again! And even were that to be correct, why need that concern you?
It has already been defined what people represents, go back and read, if you refuse that is your choice but then this explains your exclaimation!!! lol. It concerns me because I hate arrogant people who do such things, I will call them up on it and debate them. You say I IMAGINE something but indeed I INFERRED it, I can give many more examples, when I said something IS when relating to something I wrote you tried to correct and say replace it with MAY, you do this kind of thing all the time I have noticed it over the years. You put down peoples writing by trying to make it look inaccurate or mistaken, that is not a very nice way to interract with others unless really it is something that needs correction. However you have a tendency to denegrate what people say when it is not even called for and when the evidence clearly shows that your attempt to do such things doesn't even hold up!
Not only have you proven nothing of the kind (not least because it isn't the case) but also the two are not mutually exclusive, i.e. you can infer something that you imagine.
If i IMAGINE an answer vs INFER an answer, infer is much stronger, imagine can come from anywhere it is less specific. This was a clear example of you trying to denegrade what someone writes, it was a clear inferrence I made nothing to do with imagining.
"Any user" was your phrase; "user" is singular, so that phrase means "any one user".
I didn't write "any ONE user" I wrote "any user" which can mean one or plural, it has flexibility, if you refuse to yeild to that that is your own pigheaded attitude and it is not my responsibility to help you there. In any case what I wrote is not confused at all, your nitpicking does not clarify anything at all and does not progress the discussion. Why would you want to nitpick and not focus on the main points? Oh yes it is your disagreement mode that has been turned on, unfortunately it is much better to disagree with main points and show your prowess there, nitpicking really is a monkey game, not much intelligence required, but if that is the simplistic realm you wish to play in that is up to you.
As I have mentioned before, when you have some main points that are germane to a discussion to the thread topic (and I confer no obligation upon you to have any, especially since you have "inferred" that you do not consider it to have credibility, with which I agree), I might focus on them; until and unless you have such, I would certainly not grace a debate of what you write with "others".
The main points of my interaction in this thread have been clearly laid out. Let me paste it again for you:
1) Ahinton butts into conversations but proclaims he doesn't and nags when others do (pot calling the kettle black attitude), proven with links
2) PUTTING IN MORE TIME INTO WORK = LESS ERRORS, proven by logic which ahinton doesn't understand and believed it is opinion.
3) Quoting someone and then writing underneath that quote means that you are writing in response to that person not anyone else which ahinton tried to make out.
4) Ahinton likes to edit his posts after some time goes by to include snide remarks. He ususally responses with !!!! when he has had enough of me but this time he did write
5)Where in my post did I try to guide you how to respond to others, you are mistaken that I did any such thing.
6) Ahinton ignores sarcasm but at the same time in other instances tells people they need to learn about sarcasm or that the sarcasm went over their heads if they also pretend to ignore it.
Please feel free to focus on these 6 main points and not your nitpicking
I know its hard to resist when you can only pick on irrelevant information, it is much easier of course but tangents from the main points.
Ah, so your only point is the ueslessness of the thread!
It is not my only point at all that is your opinion which crumbles instantly if one notices the list of points I have put up. Yes it is a useless thread, notice how I didn't correct your spelling error???It is useless yet you also feel the need to respond, the point about Sorabji and Background radition hiss is useless, our interaction goes into totally different ideas, that was only because you tangented my initial simple idea "MORE TIME IN WORK = LESS ERRORS" from that you tangented, argued, nitpicked all over the place, I happily responded so that is what you get, perhaps if you focus on my main point and not argue about irrelevant issues our interaction would be much more brief? Though if you choose to tangent I will happily respond to it all.
Oh, dear; plural again! "Main points" - when you've just sta
Oh dear nitpicking about something that does not confuse the information.
I wrote:
"The amount of people who would would think comparing Sorabji with Radition Hiss is anything to be useful at all would be extremly small. We are with an extremely high probably the only people discussing it. I am not discussing it at all since there are more interesting matters I saw in this thread especially the remarks you make which I enjoy debating over and over again no matter how much you like to tangent discussions away from the main points"
You choose not to respond to this and merely go off into your mad world and complain about plurals. Not a very intelligent response but of course you are free to do such things.
Most of the thread is not about the topic, as a cursory glance through it would clearly reveal.
This does not answer what I asked: "I wonder why if you find it not very intelligent that you go out of your way to actually bump the post." You actually took it serious enough to bump this thread with
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=66025.msg697182#msg697182 2 days after the last post in the thread was made which was from yourself as well.
This response from you is trying to stay on the topic of the OP and I have already stated that this thread is not to be taken serious yet you feel it important enough to bump with relevance to the OP. This all stems from the fact that you refused to accept that my word "serious" was appropriate to use as you began to nitpick about here:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=66025.msg697396#msg697396Ahinton wrote: If my remark to which this purports to be a response is indicative of the comparison being taken seriously, I would be very surprised indeed!
So please stay on topic of your quotes, we are debating the word "serious" in this section of the thread, go back and track what the particular quotes extend from otherwise your responses become more and more tangented away from the main point.
No. For one thing, no one has "asked" anyone to contribute any posts to this thread and, for another, as I already stated, much of what's being written here is not about that topic in any case.
No?? I said thal has not contributed to this thread as much as you and myself, are you denying that with your NO response? lol. Again this is you in disagreement over issues which are very clear and obvious, no opinion required, clear evidence shown. Your "no" response is void in respose to the fact that Thal has not contributed as much as you and I in this thread. This chain of quotes has nothing to do with staying on topic, it has all to do with the word "serious". Please stay on topic ahinton, you are tangenting too much, however if you like to tangent and nitpick please carry on, I will respond to each one.
Poll
Topic: Sorabji vs Microwave Background Radiation Hiss